S.S. v. J.D. CA3

California Court of Appeal May 27, 2022 No. C094418Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's renewal of a domestic violence restraining order, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the respondent maintained a reasonable apprehension of future abuse.

Issues

Whether a single act of abuse is required to justify the renewal of a domestic violence restraining order.
Whether the trial court erred in renewing the DVRO despite the appellant moving out of the shared residence.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to modify the DVRO.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Based on S.S.’s testimony, it found by a preponderance of the evidence that she continues to entertain a reasonable apprehension of future abuse.”

“The testimony of a single witness may constitute substantial evidence supporting the renewal of a DVRO”

“while evidence of restraining order violations is relevant to a renewal request, such evidence is not required for renewal”

Filed 5/27/22 S.S. v. J.D. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

S.S., C094418

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STAFLDVWO20200000751) v.

J.D.,

Appellant.

Appellant J.D. appeals from the trial court’s order renewing a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) issued against him to protect his former girlfriend S.S. He contends the trial court erred in (1) finding a single act of abuse was sufficient to justify the DVRO, (2) reissuing the DVRO despite a substantial change in circumstances, and (3) refusing to modify the DVRO. Finding no error, we will affirm the trial court’s order.

BACKGROUND On February 13, 2020, S.S. filed her original request for a DVRO. The request sought protection for her and her adult daughter A.W. and asked that J.D. be ordered to move out of the home they shared. The DVRO request alleged that on January 17, 2020, J.D. yelled at S.S. and blocked her bedroom door so she could not leave. When he left the room, S.S. attempted to close her door, but J.D. kicked the door open and pushed S.S. into the closet. J.D. yelled at S.S., calling her names and demanding her phone. She refused but J.D. took the phone and said she could have it back when she paid for it. S.S. alleged J.D. had threatened her job and her daughter. According to S.S., J.D. said she could not make him leave. The request further alleged that on February 11, 2020, J.D. berated her when she arrived home. Rather than argue with him, S.S. tried to leave in her car. J.D. followed her to the car, his anger escalating. He attempted to open her car door and demanded she give him her phone. S.S. called out for someone to contact the police, and J.D. retorted that no one was going to help her. Noticing a passing car, S.S. attempted to get the attention of the motorist, and in so doing, got out of her car. J.D. reached into her car and took her phone. S.S. asked J.D. to return her phone, but he refused, stating she could have it back when she paid for it. S.S. left and contacted the police. Following a hearing that included testimony from S.S. and J.D., the trial court granted S.S.’s request for a DVRO on March 5, 2020. The order required J.D. to (1) immediately move out of the shared property, (2) stay at least 100 yards away from S.S., (3) not contact S.S., and (4) not harass, destroy personal property of, or disturb the peace of S.S. The order was set to expire March 5, 2021. On February 17, 2021, S.S. filed a request to renew the DVRO against J.D. The renewal request attached police reports and a response to a public records request. The trial court extended protective coverage until a renewal hearing scheduled for May 19,

S.S. v. J.D. CA3

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief